nanog mailing list archives
Re: redistribute bgp considered harmful
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 00:29:09 +0200 (CEST)
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
Should the Service Provider version of routing software include the redistribute bgp command? Other than CCIE labs, I haven't seen a real-world use for redistributing the BGP route table into any IGP.
I don't think it's the business of anyone outside an AS whether this AS redistributes BGP into an IGP. This can sometimes be useful. I'd be much happier to see redistributing IGPs into BGP being removed. But I guess the people that use this for legitimate reasons won't like this so much. But not allowing BGP -> IGP -> BGP might be a good one. On the other hand, someone who is determined to screw up could do BGP -> IGP on one router and IGP -> BGP on another.
If the command was removed (or included a Are your sure? question) what would the affect be on ISPs, other than improving reliability by stopping network engineers from fubaring a backbone?
One customer I have would need to invest to upgrade their layer 3 switch to support BGP in addition to OSPF.
Current thread:
- redistribute bgp considered harmful Sean Donelan (Oct 04)
- Re: redistribute bgp considered harmful Kevin Oberman (Oct 04)
- Re: redistribute bgp considered harmful Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 04)
- Re: redistribute bgp considered harmful David Luyer (Oct 07)
- Re: redistribute bgp considered harmful Stephen J. Wilcox (Oct 07)
- Re: redistribute bgp considered harmful Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 07)
- Re: redistribute bgp considered harmful David Luyer (Oct 07)
- Re: redistribute bgp considered harmful E.B. Dreger (Oct 04)
- Re: redistribute bgp considered harmful Nigel Taylor (Oct 04)
- Re: redistribute bgp considered harmful Joe Abley (Oct 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: redistribute bgp considered harmful Charles Youse (Oct 04)
- RE: redistribute bgp considered harmful Andrew . McConnell (Oct 04)